Bill McKay: The Better Way!

1. "The Candidate" stars Robert Redford as Bill McKay, a young lawyer
who is manipulated into running against the Democratic candidate of
California by political election specialist, Marvin Lucas

2. The film highlights how front-running politicians are often groomed
by a team of "handlers" and "election specialists". The end result is
less a person and more some cookie-cutter "one man for all people"
fantasy image. (historically, "young/vibrant presidents" often follow
"old/seemingly wise presidents", the public always bouncing from one
extreme to the next, forever dissatisfied)

3. The film charts how disillusioned those within the political sphere
often become. McKay goes from an idealistic lawyer who fights in the
public's interest, to a man who spouts banal slogans and vapid sound
bites.

4. How to win an election: have no clear political message. Stick to
vague promises and appealing catchphrases. Promise change but specify
nothing.

5. The film highlights how in-bred "democratic politics" has become.
Everyone's father is in the business, everyone's calling in favours,
scratching backs and providing a helping hand.

6. Studies show that, not only do a disproportionate number of sons
follow their fathers into politics, but that those sons who lost or
were separated from their fathers at an early age, or view their
"politician fathers" as failures, often climb higher into power then
their parents. There's some seriously warped psychological issues going
on there.

7. Those drawn to politics are often those worse suited to the job.
Those idealistic few who join for noble purposes, are soon crushed by
the system.

8. Politicians: automatons, cult like drones who adopt the speech
patterns of those they admire and surround themselves with. Democracy:
forever dependent on voter gullibility.

9. After McKay wins the election at the end of the film, he turns to
his handlers and says, "What do we do now?" What indeed. If the process
of winning an election is so difficult, so time consuming, one imagines
that staying in power will become a similarly all consuming and
obsessive task. The politician cares not about bettering society, but
about doing what is necessary to stay in power.

10. Most social changes, benefits, progress etc, occur despite
politicians/politics, not because of it.

11. Politics in the television age: image driven, a circus act, empty
spectacle, pure entertainment, voters asked to choose a leader like
they choose a detergent brand.

12. McKay's political colours (yellow, green) deliberately revoke the
reds, whites and blues of Americana. Only at the end, when he wins and
is fully corrupted, does he succumb, his car now draped in reds, whites
and blues.

13. Films like this were common in the 70s, many evoking the paranoia
of the time period: "The Parallax View", "Three Days of the Condor",
"Z", "All The President's Men", "The Manchurian Candidate" etc.

14. French sociologist Jacques Ellul argued in his book, "Propaganda",
that it matters little what propagandists stand for or what their ends
are (Liberal, Conservative, Republican, Democrat etc), because they are
all taking part in an exercise that is fundamentally dehumanizing and
anti-democratic. McKay may be a handsome, sympathetic icon of
liberalism and virtue, but ultimately this isn't important. McKay and
what he stands for will inevitably be overcome by the political machine
he inhabits. He's no different from his opponent.

15. Ellul discussed this idea further in "The Technological Society".
Here he argues that we are now so obsessed with technology and
efficiency  with that one very best way to achieve a predetermined
goal  that we have lost sight of our actions and, in a fundamental
way, of what it means to be human. This idea is apparent throughout the
film, the political campaign run by a hive of specialised robot
consultants and a candidate who misplaces some of his humanness once he
becomes obsessed with getting his "numbers" to move in the right
direction. Poll numbers, soft-money loopholes, attack ads, phone
ratings...this is politics meets Game Theory.

16: The religion of the future: the cult of control, of number worship,
of data mining, of information gathering. Theory: security equals more
data. Reality: Chaos.

8/10  Excellent. The problem with these films, though, is that we as a
modern audience are so aware of the problems, are so cynical towards
politics anyway, that these films all amount to wasted preaching.
Perhaps the realisation is that it is arrogant to assume that one man,
one bill passed by congress, has the effect to instigate meaningful
change, especially now that we live in a world where the big social
changes seem to occur irrationally, often by accident (a world where a
woman like Rosa Parks sitting in the back of a bus ends racial
segregation?). One is then forced to make an almost Sartrean leap. If
nothing counts, then why enter politics? Which leads to, if nothing
counts, then everything does.

Worth one viewing.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

A must for cynics

Robert Redford, the idealistic son of a former party machine governor, gets
encouraged into running for the U.S. Senate by a coterie of professional
handlers. Fascinating film, alternately satiric, cynical, subtle, and
ironic. Shot mostly in a documentary style. A must for cynics and/or
political junkies; others won't care. A good performance by Redford is
complimented by fine work by Boyle and Garfield. Douglas is also great as
the candidate's father. One of filmdom's classic closing lines. 2 stars
of
4 on a tough scale.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

The Shaping of a Political Candidate

"The Candidate" is very insightful, very conscientious, and very
accurate in exploring the trials, tribulations, and developments in
transforming a nihilistic underdog into a popular, contending candidate
for the California Senate. It is a good, provocative, and even satiric
look at the ups and downs of the political landscape, as well as its
many constraints, with political advisers not interested in the
candidate's candidness, but rather sealing an election, and this is
very fascinatingly and simply laid out in a film that goes "the full
monty" in exploring the American political landscape- this is generally
a behind-the-scenes development of the political process- from the
frequent campaign rallies, to the luncheons and parades, to the
advantage of incumbency, to dirty campaign tricks, to critical debates,
and finally, to the anxiety, tension, and exasperation of the election.
Robert Redford is the character study, playing an aspiring, yet hardly
hopeful, son of a former California governor, dashing and articulate
candidate for California Senate, Bill McKay, for the Democratic party.
His challenger is incumbent Senator Crocker Jarmon, who seems to be the
antithesis of all of the charisma, articulation, and humbleness that is
McKay, a rather arrogant, prudent, and unappealing candidate,
regardless of whether you share his beliefs. I have to wonder- is the
film taking jabs at the Republican party- claiming it is apathetic,
self-serving, and shadowy, while in contrast the Democratic party cares
passionately about the people, contains darling appeal, and considers a
"better way" for the people rather than simply winning an election.
Perhaps I am finding ways to detract from some clear and distinguished
differences between McKay and Jarmon, because of their parties in the
film, and perhaps this is because I believe BOTH parties stand for the
people, regardless of my political allegiances- whatever; just a
curious observation. Robert Redford plays McKay very well and
earnestly- really bringing this vivacious and whimsical character to
life and shining on the "campaign trail". The screenplay is absolutely
brilliant- taking every idea about politics and ingeniously infusing it
throughout the many events of the film: a very constructive and
admirable endeavor indeed. The music is very patriotic, sentimental,
and portentous, really defining the American political spirit, and
really pounding on a theme of greatness through victory. This is an
extremely well crafted, well scripted, well acted, well directed, and
well received, albeit very predictable and incisive, film, exploring
the political landscape as verily as I have ever seen a film endeavor
in. It's simple, entertaining, and contains some solid education about
the shaping of a political candidate, through a hostile, volatile, and
demanding political campaign- "The Candidate" is a real winner. ***1/2
out of ****

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Dull Debate about the Politics of Forty Years Ago

"The Candidate" is a film which has something in common with Sidney
Lumet's "Power" from the following decade. Both films look at the role
played by political consultants, what would today be called "spin
doctors", in the American electoral process, and both were made at a
time when there was a popular conservative Republican in the White
House, Nixon in 1972 and Reagan in the eighties. (Prior to the
Watergate scandal, Nixon was highly popular, as indicated by his
landslide win in that year's Presidential election). One difference
between the films is that in "Power" more attention is paid to the
personality of the spin doctor, whereas here it is the candidate
himself who is at the centre.

The film tells the story of a campaign for a Senate seat in California,
currently held by another popular conservative Republican, Senator
Crocker Jarmon. The Democratic candidate is Bill McKay, an idealistic,
charismatic and politically liberal lawyer. Much of the film deals with
the relationship between McKay and his spin doctor Marvin Lucas, who
endeavours to persuade McKay to tone down his radical rhetoric,
especially on controversial issues like abortion and school bussing,
and to make himself a bland, centrist candidate, all things to all men.

The script was written by Jeremy Larner, who had been a speechwriter
for the liberal Senator Eugene McCarthy during the 1968 Presidential
election campaign, so was presumably made with a liberal agenda in
mind. It seems, however, to have ended up as one of those films which
were ostensibly made from a liberal standpoint but which are just as
capable of being interpreted in a conservative, or at least a centrist,
fashion. (Others that come to mind include "High Noon" and "Seven Days
in May"). Larner may have intended an indictment of the way in which
the US political system discourages genuinely radical debate of issues
such as poverty and race relations. The storyline, however, in which
McKay comes back from a seemingly hopeless position to win the race,
could also be interpreted as a warning that the Democrats must abandon
radicalism and seek out the centre ground if they are to win elections.
(If that was indeed the film's message, it was sadly lost on George
McGovern, their candidate for President that year). Of course, Larner
had put himself in a difficult position; had he written an ending in
which Jarmon won the election, some might have seen this as an
endorsement of conservative Republicanism.

The film is made in a rather dry, semi-documentary style, concentrating
more on political debate than on personal issues. There is a suggestion
that McKay, a married man, may be having an affair with another woman,
but this issue is given far less prominence that it would be in most
political dramas. The personal relationship which is given most
prominence is the rather difficult one between McKay and his more
conservative father John, a former State Governor, who is initially
reluctant to endorse his son's campaign. McKay is played by Robert
Redford, one of Hollywood's most prominent liberals and a huge star in
the seventies, but he cannot do much with the role; McKay comes across
as little more than a handsome, charismatic mouthpiece for a set of
ideas, some of which are not really even his own.

Peter Boyle as Lucas and Don Porter as Jarmon are rather better, but to
my mind this is a film which never really comes to life. Some of the
issues have a certain modern resonance; many of Jarmon's speeches, for
example, would go down well with the current "Tea Party" movement.
Overall, however, my impression was that, while "The Candidate" may
have been controversial in 1972, today is just comes across as a dull
debate about the politics of forty years ago. "Power" has its faults,
but it has held up rather better as an examination of the role of the
spin doctor. 5/10

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Candidn't who candid

It's interesting that "The Candidate" starts with a look at the
attitudes of the political handlers because they're apparently the
motive force in this film. They are (in the film) unscrupulous salesmen
who are selling political services. Poor Bill McKay is the cynical son
of an ex-politician who thinks he's seen it all but gets suckered and
seduced anyway.

That's the disappointing thing about cynicism- a lot of people knock it
and try to eradicate it but, as this film suggests, frequently we're
not cynical enough. Cynicism kills you while it protects you.

I'm not a politician but what little I know about it, unless McKay's
handlers were hired by Crocker Jarmon, they get paid to WIN, not lose.
If they WIN, they get hired by someone else, if they LOSE, they don't.
So it's in Marvin Lucas' best interests to WIN. When he tells McKay
it's alright to lose, he's lying.

Since Marcus came to McKay and not the other way around, (is THAT
realistic?) then we have to view him as a sort of political
guru-for-hire who spots potential, latent ambition/vanity/hubris (and
ability to pay, presumably) and sells the idea of candidacy to the
potential candidate.

Unless I missed something, that's not the way it works, but OK.

This is a film that works on the idea that even the most idealistic
will be corrupted by the machine, remembering that "...the Abyss also
looks into you".

It's been said that no one who WANTS power should be CONSIDERED for
power. Too bad it doesn't work that way.

So here we have McKay, the standard "Thanks but no thanks" idealist who
is corrupted and suckered despite himself, despite his cynicism. From
being his own man, if that's ever possible, we see him start being
handled by his new buddies and by his suddenly ambitious wife.

I loved the scene when she says "Ooh, they cut your hair" like it was
their idea (which it was) and they were the decision-making parents
(which they were). It obviously pisses McKay off because she's so
comfortable acknowledging that the handlers are making his decisions
for him. She asks him to turn his head so she can see it but he doesn't
do it, like an angry child. He's looking at her as if she's trying to
decide which roses will look best in the White House garden. As he's
struggling with his own latent ambition, he's also observing hers. He's
lost control and, struggling to get away from his father's influence,
he and his wife are now under the influences of both his advisers and
their own life ambitions.

Because really, how long CAN McKay remain an idealistic storefront
lawyer? "Growth" is inevitable. The alternatives are stagnation and
decay.

Interestingly, besides creating a health clinic or planting some trees,
his "before candidacy" character doesn't have solutions for the BIG
problems any more than anyone else does. Idealism, yes, solutions no.

And that's the message that Melvyn Douglas gives us. "It doesn't
matter". Politics aren't here to save the world, they're an element of
it's destruction. We can slow the process down, (MAYBE) but we can't
stop it. Like the aging process, you can stay in shape and eat well but
you can't make yourself younger. The processes of the world
(technology, power, suburban sprawl, etc.) have agendas of their own
and we can push them forward but we can't hold them back.

While you're saving the trees, they're killing the whales and when you
turn to the whales, they're cutting the trees. When you're saving THIS
forest, they're chopping down that one and raising the taxes, starting
wars, creating pollution, writing new laws, limiting your rights and
hitting you over the head with guns, red tape, inoculations and
misinformation. All in "your best interests". Progress will eventually
kill us.

So, "The Candidate" isn't about political solutions, it's about the
seduction of Power. As McKay looks into Power, Power looks into him.
Will he turn into his father, despite himself?

Redford is great in this film, bringing a lot of comedy to a role that
greatly needed it. I've always loved that scene where he can't keep
from laughing (due to exhaustion) while trying to express his "Point Of
View". In his best films, he doesn't forget the comedy.

This is the first time I've seen the film when I'm old enough (97) to
realize that he does take a private timeout with that beguiling girl
with the glasses.

"The Candidate" is a great film but it isn't prescient. It's a
statement of the eternal political process, more or less the way it's
always been. "Spin" existed before the term was coined, they just
called it something else, like "lying".

In case you care, my favorite parts of "SpyGame" were the parts in the
present where Muir was outfoxing the foxes. When RR wants to be, he's
one of the best actors around. Funny and smart.

OK and while I'm at it, one of his best-delivered lines ever was in "3
Days Of The Condor":

"It's a great face...but it's never been to China."

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Political world...

I recently watched "Downhill Racer", an earlier collaboration between
director Ritchie and star Redford and didn't much enjoy it, largely due
to a basic disinterest in the lives of Alpine skiers and Redford's
rather unsavoury lead character. This scathing and realistic depiction
of the US political scene however was much more rewarding allowing both
Ritchie and Redford to shine in an excellent drama, making use of a
fly-on-the-wall, almost documentary technique to paint a convincing
warts-and-all picture of the machinery which it seems is necessary for
the candidature of an aspiring US senator.

Being from Britain, of course some of the background and terminology
used was slightly foreign, but the film holds up really well on a
universal basis, particularly in its portrayal of what we'd now term
behind the scenes "spin-doctors" and the fronting of a political
machine by a young good-looking idealistic conviction-politician
against an old-style right-wing ultra-conservative rival - the
parallels between the Blair/Major UK election of 1997 and obviously
2008 Obama/McCain US election, while not exact, are certainly palpable.

I personally rate this as Redford's best ever acting display - he seems
an absolute natural as the initially energetic, moral, campaigning, but
no-hope candidate, who learns the hard way about compromise, political
correctness and above all how the arcane machinery of politics USA
actually works. Thus we see him "on the stump" in amusing vox-pops with
eccentric or bemused members of the public, cleaning up his physical
appearance and generalising his ideals for the sake of bland,
voter-friendly rhetoric and even falling victim to the temptations of
the flesh to an obsessive female follower, this last point, concisely
and effectively made without over-dramatisation (c.f. Gary Hart and of
course Pres. Clinton himself) - for sure Redford's McKay character did
have sexual relations with this woman, but lives to tell the tale.

Tension is built up as election day looms, and we see McKay starting to
break down under the pressure as he resorts to gibberish en-route to a
TV studio but by then his on-side advertising campaign, highlighting
his good-looks, youthful vigour but playing down his more controversial
left-of-centre views, propels him to an unlikely win against his
incumbent opponent and by the surprise ending just at the point of
victory, the director I think is telling us that the movie is less
about the contest than the process itself. A similar ending device was
used at the end of "Downhill Racer" but it works far better this time
as you genuinely are intrigued by Redford's multi-dimensional character
and wonder just what kind of senator he would have made. The absence of
a sequel was definitely a missed opportunity here.

A quick word about the ensemble acting - it's uniformly good and verite
is reinforced with the appearances of a number of real-life
personalities ranging all the way from pre CNN-era TV commentators to
Natalie Wood at a fund-raiser, although quite what an uncredited
Groucho Marx is doing haranguing Redford in a toilet is anyone's guess.

In closing then a brave, uncompromising, multi-layered and above all
entertaining insight into contemporary US politics of the early 70's.
Note to self - must re-watch "All The President's Men" sometime soon...

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Timeless political comedy with bite.

Unobtrusive, documentary-style direction by the underrated Michael
Ritchie lends verisimilitude to Jeremy Larner's witty (Oscar-winning)
script. It feels like you're really on the campaign trail with a
"pretty-boy" senatorial candidate (played with typically effortless
charm by Robert Redford), who can barely keep up with a platform being
built on the fly and the relentless media blitz that dogs him every
step. Events move swiftly to their inevitable, ironic conclusion,
highlighted by one of the best closing lines in cinema history.

Terrific support is provided by character actors Peter Boyle, Allen
Garfield, Melvyn Douglas and others, plus a host of cameos by real
politicians of the era such as Alan Cranston and Hubert Humphrey. If
you want an idea how modern American politics works, this is still a
pretty good primer.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

A who's who of 1970s politics

One of the really cool things about this movie is the list of cameo
appearances. Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, John Tunney, Gene
Washington, Cedric Hardman, Van Amburg, and other notables from
California Democratic politics circa 1972 are all in here.

George McGovern reputedly hated this movie. Remember that he was the
Democratic nominee for president in 1972. When asked about "The
Candidate", he said "I didn't like it, I thought it reflects the
darkest side of American politics".

Redford is amazing in this film, as an idealistic young lawyer torn
between principle and ambition. Definitely one of the greatest actors
of our time.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Film for all would be candidates to view

Anyone thinking of running for public office should view this film. It is
primer on how to win a race. Roman Pucinski when he ran for the U.S.
Senate
in Illinois in 1972 required his staff to view this film. Redford was the
candidate we all hope would serve our state. This film should be shown
before every election.It has a timeless message

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Great movie, hope they make a sequel some day!

Redford plays a semi-serious lawyer Bill McKay whose father was once a
governor for California. Now some want him to follow his father's
footsteps and become a candidate for senator, but he has a tough rival
and his attitude towards it all seems as if he doesn't want to do it,
but does it anyway.

Redford is just great in this movie... and very cute! The ending is
left just right fora sequel, which I wonder why they haven't made yet.